“no material impact” doesn’t (necessarily) mean zero, and even a zero-money-changed-hands cross-licensing deal isn’t a zero opportunity cost.

This speculation about Apple getting a patent tax (echoed by John Koetsier in this case) has Grok law say: “Does that sound fair to you? Sound like the US patent system is working as it should?

If HTC has been illegally using Apple’s property it makes a lot of sense for HTC to pay Apple for past and future use. Of course.

formal reports say nothing about a tax

Of course not. You are using the term "tax" completely incorrectly. Why would others use your incorrect term?

Right.
So no losses, correct?

We do not know that. It could be he is comparing what *is* with would would be likely if this went to court. We do not know. Note, the fact we do not know means we do not know that HTC is paying Apple anything – I am not suggesting they are!

Apple and HTC have a cross-licensing deal that some are saying could mean Apple collects $6 to $8 per Android phone sold. The truth is, though, that Google’s real benefit from the spread of Android comes from bringing new users into its lucrative search/ad ecosystem.

Right. Google’s main business model is to collect data on users and monetize it. Scary, eh? Yet you try to prop them up as the good guys. Neither Apple nor Google nor Samsung nor Microsoft are blameless entities… they all have mixes of good and evil. Your bias, though, makes you focus on the evils of MS and Apple and pretend Samsung and Google are the good guys. Completely absurd and unsupportable. This is shown by your claiming Eric Savitz is a "Microsoft booster". More immature silliness from you. Your claim is shown to be false just looking at his articles on MS: http://seekingalpha.com/author/eric-savitz/articles/symbol/msft Notice how some are good and some are bad. No *objective* sign of "boosting". You see anyone who does not buy into your paranoid BS as boosting those you see as being evil.